To quote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad directly:



Link to story

I would specifically like some input from the gay community here on on this issue:

1. Do you agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that there are no gay individuals in Iran?

If you don't think this is so, why would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad make such claims?

2. Do you think the reports that Iran is torturing and executing gays are factual?

Do you agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that there are no gay individuals in Iran?
LOL sums it up for me.

If you don't think this is so, why would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad make such claims?
I think Lang's take is spot on: He made a lame joke out of Iranian capital punishments for homosexual behavior. The esoteric gist was, "we don't care what you think about it".

Do you think the reports that Iran is torturing and executing gays are factual?
Sure do. Evil liberal NGOs like HRW and ungodly gay activists and bloggers (pics in this link may disturb some) have reported executions and abuse for years.

Your response pretty much sum up my feelings Lesly. What I am wondering is why people who expect us to take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seriously as a world leader would continue to do so when he is making such outlandish statements such as those above.

Because he is a Iran's "leader" for one. Two is we can only view our leadership from the position of being on the internal. The backlash against things he says are varied but large all over the world, yet at home it does not seem to fit in the opinions of many that anything he said was silly and or outlandish.

I guess that’s my point. I don’t see our president and Iran’s as anything similar, but remarks on outlandish or generally stupid things they do or say happens to exist, yet at home here in the states this leader still finds support, so what have you.

As for the statement itself. Well, I think the general support for Iran’s current head honcho derives itself from international actions in Iran which lead to very negative and lasting consequences, which pathologically speaking leads to what I feel but don’t know for sure is the Iran of today. Iran is also a nation that takes a strong stance against anything liberal and or different from the accepted norm, so again its outlandish, but not shocking and no real nation is free from such basically dumb actions and or statements. I mean bushs actions on homosexuality at home have been nothing but aberrant in a neo con postulate if not brutal and completely uncivil really.

He's not. He's the equivalent of the Queen of England, the head of state. We should take him as seriously as a representative of a sovereign state. Iran's leader isn't going to step foot inside the U.S.


He's not as off the wall as the U.S. press portrays him, but that simply supports taking him to task for making light of wacking gays.


I think sanctions and other forms of foreign pressure has a psychological effect on regimes but events have to match up to support this argument. From Wiki: "According to The Boroumand Foundation, there are records of at least 107 executions with charges related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990". We haven't been applying consistent pressure, or as much pressure post-Iraq, since 1979.

I would specifically like some input from the gay community here on on this issue:

Do you agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that there are no gay individuals in Iran?

Of course - just like there are no gay Republican politicians.

If you don't think this is so, why would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad make such claims?

It was an idiotic way of deflecting the question - and of avoiding Iran's abusive treatment of gays and lesbians. By denying the existence of gays, it is simple to deny them human rights.

Do you think the reports that Iran is torturing and executing gays are factual?

Certainly. Homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran - though most are simply imprisoned and given the lash.



Who are these people who expect us "to take Ahmadinejad seriously as a world leader"? So far as I can make out, most of those on the left tend to think of him as a buffoon with too much press. It's really only those who are openly hostile to all things Iranian who seem to take his various pronouncements seriously (whether misquoted and mistranslated or not). Most others tend to accept the fact that he is a powerless figurehead who is a frequent embarrassment to the real ruling elite in Iran.

Ask those who keep wailing about Holocaust denial and map-wiping why they take him so seriously. To everyone else, he's a bit of a joke.

no LIVE homosexuals, that is

Can't speak for the homosexual folks here.

However, just on the level of observation, this guy is either very challenged or in some other manner FUBAR'd as a homo sapien sapien.

Doesn't he know you can't prove a negative?

I mean, really.

1. Do you agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that there are no gay individuals in Iran?
Ya sure – I am with the kids at Columbia – a few booed but most just LAUGHED.

If you don't think this is so, why would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad make such claims?
This shows a good part of this mans wacked out brain and it is one of the reasons he is so dangerous. We are Satan, not because of Bush or anyother President but because we are not Muslims and we allow homosexuals to live …………..

Lets all pray this nut case never gets nuclear weapons

2. Do you think the reports that Iran is torturing and executing gays are factual?
Of course. Iraq and Iran have been similar in many ways over the past 30 years. Both regimes felt comfortable killing anyone who did not fit in.

Stoning to Death in Iran:
A Crime Against Humanity
Carried Out By the Mullahs' Regime
________________________________________
The stoning of women is one of the more savage, and revealing aspects of the mullahs' rule in Iran. This vicious punishment of women is without precedent in Iran's recent history. Since the inception of the mullahs' rule, hundreds of women of various ages have been and continue to be stoned to death throughout Iran.
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html



“UN SILENT ON IRAN HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES
Last night, Akbar Mohammadi, a 36 year-old pro-democracy activist who was on a hunger strike to protest his own detention and call for the release of all political prisoners, died in the Evin Prison in Tehran. Mohammadi, who had spent several years in prison, had been arrested along with thousands of other students (including his brother Mohammad) following the 1999 students protest triggered by the vigilantes attack on a peaceful campus rally in support of freedom of the press. The attack led to the murder of at least one student, a crime which was left.

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/003979.html

The Islamic republic of Iran has embarked on a new wave of suppression. I the recent days it has executed a number of prisoners, stoned some to death and arrested a number of labour, student and activist of women’s movement in Iran. This is part of its assault to intimidate the rising protest movement in Iran.

Number of arrest and summarily executions has risen dramatically.
• Last week, the Islamic regime stoned Jafa Kiyani to death in Takistan.
• On Saturday 14 July, in northern city of Tabriz, Horiyeh, was executed in public for having sex out of wedlock.
• On the same day 3 others were hanged in the same city.
• It was announced that in a few days time, Mokarameh Ebrahimi, mother of 5 children would be stoned to death.
• The Leaders of the Islamic Republic have announced last week that they have verified the execution of 20 young people.
• Mansour Osdanloo, leader of the Tehran Bus drivers Union has been kidnapped and imprisoned.

Furthermore they have announced that religious police would be doubled in city parks and streets to prevent teenage boys and girls mixing and floating ‘religious ethics’

http://www.petitiononline.com/1387/petition.html

This is simply wrong. He is the President of Iran, accountable only to the Supreme Leader--the religious leader. He is, in fact, the secular leader of Iran.

Source: Wiki



The current Iranian Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei who shares the views of the President of Iran.

I know what Wiki says. Thanks for posting it. I'm not wrong. "President" in Iran isn't the same as president in the U.S. Iran's system of government is a religiously based semi-presidential system. In semi-presidential systems the president's duties vary from state to state. Talabani is Iraq's president, but his duties are limited.

Who rules the roost, Amlord, if presidential candidates are vetted by the Council of Guardians, who are themselves chosen by Ali Khamenei? Here's another Wiki article filed under the "executive branch" heading:

The Constitution defines the President as the highest state authority after (sic) the Supreme Leader. [...] Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces. Although the President appoints the Ministers of Intelligence and Defense, it is customary for the President to obtain explicit approval from the Supreme Leader for these two ministers before presenting them to the legislature for a vote of confidence.

You are implying that the President of Iran has no real powers, just like the Queen of England. This is not true. The President of Iran does answer to the Supreme Leader (as I know you know and as I acknowledged), but it is not a titular head of state. The President of Iran runs the executive branch there, appoints several key positions (subject, of course, to the whims of the Supreme Leader).

He appoints the Council of Leaders, he vets all legislation before it is placed before the Legislature, he carries out the laws. He is quite powerful.

To me a statement like this is best seen as a mirror we hold up to ourselves. Here in the "land of the free," the right sees this statement as horrible, and yet what do they want here? Not capital punishment (outside of the crazy fundy circles), but at the least non-recognition. Want to really show the world a clear difference between Iran and the US when it comes to gays? Show the true idiocy of Iran's views by supporting the rights of gay people in this country. Show them not by making outraged statements, but by becoming a country that embodies the words "the land of the free."

I did find this interesting anthropological article about the subject here.

One of the comments to that article reminded me of the sad fate of Alan Turing, who committed suicide after being convicted of homosexuality (and spending time in jail) here in the US.

Let's throw stones once we've earned the right.

It's a front, Amlord. The president's actions have symbolic meaning. Why do you want to negotiate with the man who doesn't control the IRGC and Basij (unless he gains Khamenei's approval)? Presenting bills to the legislator is just another screening process.


I didn't say he's insignificant. The British crown, at least in theory, can also "dissolve Parliament, regulate the civil service, issue passports, make treaties or send ambassadors", because the powers of the executive are vested in the crown. But as in the case with Ahmadinejad, "the monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, exercising the Royal Prerogative on the advice of ministers". Ahmadinejad's sole minister is Khamenei.

You are implying that the Queen of England has no real powers, just like the President of Iran. This is not true. The Sovereign does answer to Parliament (in certain areas), but it is not a titular head of state. The Sovereign of England runs the executive branch there (at least - like Ahmadinejad - on paper), is responsible for appointing new Prime Ministers (though by convention appointment is usually of the individual most likely to maintain the support of the House of Commons), appoints and dismisses Cabinet and other ministers (on the Prime Minister's advice), may unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, is Supreme Governor of the established Church of England, and must approve the absence of any member of the Cabinet who wants to leave the country. The Royal Perogative, exercised on the advice of ministers, includes the powers to dissolve Parliament, make treaties, issue passports, and create embassies. The Sovereign of England also creates the peerages that make up the House of Lords and awards all honors. He or she is also the visible and emblematic head of state - the Sovereign's face appears on all coins, stamps, and banknotes, passports are issued in his or her name, oaths of allegiance are sworn to (and the national anthem sung to) the Sovereign of England.

What's Mahmoud got? As the President of Iran has no reserve powers, it could be argued - easily - that the Queen of England has far more "real power" than the secular second-fiddle in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Academic arguments aside, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Elizabeth Windsor are about equal when it comes to real power - and certainly when it comes to setting or implementing policy.

This may seem like a bit of a tangent, but I think it does address part of the reason Ahmadinejad could make such a statement. He may reflect some of the Supreme Leader's attitudes, though he has a certain amount of license to spout his own prejudices, as well, but he knows that - in Iran at least - his words have no authority whatsoever.

But quarkhead makes a very good point on this. When Ahmadinejad makes such asinine statements, they have no impact in his country at all. But when US politicians make equally ignorant remarks, hold equally bigoted opinions, or espouse even greater hypocrisy, it often becomes national policy, if not, indeed, national law.

Amen.

The question of power in politics is always a debateable one, but in this case Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has real power both because of his powerful backers and despite them.

Yesterday's Asia Times had an article about Ahmadinejad's growing power.



Ahmadinejad has done what a strong willed monarch of the UK could do: turn his "on paper" powers into real power and influence. This guy is everywhere, was nominated for Time's Man (sorry, Person) of the Year last year, has addressed the UN multiple times, tours the world, and is probably the most "in the news" world leader outside of Bush.

Global Security's bio of him notes that he was backed by the conservative establishment. The reasoning was insightful:


Why would the established power base worry about being challenged in the President is powerless? Obviously the position has not only popular support (due to the elected nature of the post) but also a bully pulpit from which to broadcast one's views. That is aside from the real powers that the President can grasp if he is willing to do so.

The backhand slap to the US above via the same sex marriage angle is simply out there. Same sex marriages are performed in exactly six countries, including the US. Those are the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain and the US (in Massachusetts). Same sex civil partnerships are more widely recognized, again including in the US. To say that we are ignoring gay rights is hardly defensible. Yes, there is a debate, as there is a debate in many countries. That is what democracy is all about.

Because it's been challenged before by legislatures and Khatami. If you're a pro-reform politician you challenged the Council before Ahmadinejad hit the scene, and conservative Majlis members, with the help of the Council, fought back, making sure nothing got passed.

When France originally came up with the semi-presidential system they gave the presidency to de Gaulle as an honorary position. The presidency has evolved since then. It's not surprising politicians would use their position to increase their power, but Ahmadinejad is still on board because the Council and Khamenei will it. His prestige and therefore his clout have increased, but I'm not sure that will translate into actionable power without Khamenei's leave:

"The leader is concerned that any effort to make the country more manageable will lead to reform and will undermine his authority," said Saeed Leylaz, an economist and former government official of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The leadership has been able to ease some of the pain because of unprecedented income from the sale of crude oil. Ultimately, those interviewed agreed, the president has continued unimpeded because he has the support of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say in all state matters.

"The only thing that has kept Ahmadinejad in power is the support of the leadership," said Muhammad Atrianfar, publisher of two newspapers that have been closed and an ally of a former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. "As soon as the leader stops supporting him, he can easily be impeached and dismissed."


It must also be about joining Iran to block gay representation in the U.N. on the foreign front, where it would do some much needed good.

Nice uninformative, ad hominem article. No mention of why the application was rejected. Could it be that one or both of the organizations do not meet the requirements? Could it be that they've applied before and been turned down?

DESA



I only ask because the Bush Administration has voted for other gay rights organizations that are now recognized by the ECOSOC including the Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL).

ILGA may have been opposed due to its association with NAMBLA and the US law which bars us recognizing organizations that advocate pedophilia. It is noteworthy that the US voted for ILGA in December 2006.

EDIT: Ah, I see now. Your article is from January 2006. The Bush Administration voted for these organizations in December and they are now consultative NGOs at the UN.

Uh huh. Well, if the State Department thought so, it must've been true at the time it voted against inclusion. Never mind it already voted for the pro-pedo group in the past:

Last week the State Department defended its vote against the Belgium-based International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians, claiming one of the organizations supported pedophilia.

ILGA expelled the North American Man Boy Love Association from its ranks in 1994. In 2002, when the United States actually voted for ILGA's inclusion in the U.N. organization, the U.S. representative noted that ILGA did not condone pedophilia and was crucial in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The reversal towards ILGA, thanks in large part to Jesse Helms's lobbying, is indicative that we listen to and empower our own bigots in office. It's hard to join your optimism towards gay rights as long as men like Helms aren't blocked from participating in the debate.

So what is your point? The Bush administration voted FOR these organizations. I guess they are still under the evil influence of Iran (sorry "joining Iran in the foreign front"), but slipping out of it?

You post a bash Bush article that is outdated and now insist on sticking to your guns, despite the fact that Jesse Helms is not long for this world. I don't think his influence is still affecting US policy (if it ever did) on gays.

Swerving back on topic, Ahmadinejad is a world leader and has great influence, particularly in Iran and the rest of the Shia world.

"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon".

We can add homosexuality in Iran to his Holocaust denial and call it a day.

Wait a minute. If the pinknews.com article bashes Bush it also bashes Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon and last but not least, Ahmadinejad, and rightly so.


And reversed course before voting for them again. Why? Who were they catering to?


Who says you have to be under the influence of foreign states to compliment their backwards ideology? As for my point, I thought you were trying to completely distance U.S. and Iranian policy towards homosexuals in the last paragraph of your post here.

Here is what I find interesting. The leader of Iran says that there is need for continued research into the Holocaust. That research is always a good thing and we should always keep an open mind to other possibilities.

But when it comes to homosexuality... case closed... no need to further investigation... homosexuality is purely a Western thing.

Hmm... Whatever happened to his stance on always keeping an open mind in the name of science and research?

Homosexuality is not a "Western problem" in fact; it's not a problem at all IMO. Some people are gay... who cares? The fact is that homosexuality is a Human thing and Iran is not immune to homosexuality.

I bet people are shocked to hear this from a Conservative.

Good point, but what exactly are "gay rights" again? Are they different from my rights? I'm surely not gay, and I wanna know what exactly the entitlement of gays should get.

I think the easiest way to show the idiocy of Iran on this topic would be to find some gay people in Iran, and allow them to leave and come to the US. Maybe even find Iranian ex-pats who are homosexual. It's bound to have happened. Gay couples leave the US to marry in Canada, who says that gay Iranians haven't gone to the US or Europe to find love?

Heck- maybe make an open invitation stating that "IF" (so as to not offend Iran) there are gays who want to come to the US, we'll give them a free flight. I'm sure there are some homosexual organizations that would help them get on their feet in the US. We do it for Africans, etc, why not gay Iranians?

Come one. By now, we've had enough discussions here, and in the nation at large, for it to be clear that speaking of "gay rights" is like speaking of "civil rights." It means ensuring that gay people have the same rights we do. It means that they have the right to legitimate relationships. It means striking down what remaining sodomy laws exist. I get it - you think that allowing gays to marry each other is not an equal right, it's an 'entitlement.' Perhaps you would have said the same during the civil rights struggle. Heck, blacks got the same rights as we do - they can marry a person of their own race, just like we can! If we allow them to marry whites, and go to our schools, and drink from our water fountains, they'll be getting special rights and that just ain't fair!

As for Iran. Ahmadinejad stated several days after the event that the problem was really one of translation. That he was saying Iran doesn't have a gay culture the same as America's. I don't speak Farsi, so I can't really say if that's a cop out or not. But I do encourage you to read the anthropological essay I linked previously. Iran does have an interesting gay subculture that is quite different from our own.

As for your suggestion to fly gay Iranians to the US for some sort of 'gay sanctuary,' I'd say sure, go ahead. Just realize that this idea would be strongly opposed, mostly by the idiots running your party.

I wasn't being serious about the gay rights statement. It was purely tongue in cheek... I think the term "gay rights" is absurd. But whatever. You got your two cents in, that's cool.

My party? I don't know that there's a true conservative in the GOP these days man.

However- I was by NO MEANS suggesting spending tax dollars to bring in Iranian gays. I'm saying that we should have some privately funded gay sanctuaries (hahahaha... that makes me laugh out loud).

Seriously, Churches do it. Why not homosexual homecomings? Out of Iran and OUT of the closet!!! I should be a fundraiser. It would embarass the heck out of Iran, and surely make for entertaining news. I can see the SNL and Colbert Report skits now.

*side note*
QH, the thing I find hilarious about your stance on homosexuality hilarious, particularly because you equate it to racism. If a gay person isn't flambouyant and wearing "gay pride" stickers, how does someone know? Seriously. If you work with them, you might get an inclination, etc... but during an interview? At a cafe? In Kroger? How does someone know?

I'll never understand why a gay person has to put a sticker advertising their sexuality on the car like an LSU football booster. The notion that Iranians don't have a homosexual "culture" or even "homosexuals" says alot, but is it surprising?

I could care less if you marry Bob or Suzy, so long as the homosexual marriages don't have anything to do with my church. The problem I do have is the notion (alot like Black people I suppose) that there is rampant discrimination. QH, most people don't care, and if gay people would behave, no one would even know. At least black people can immediately claim that we see the difference and can have a propensity for prejudice. Excepting speech patterns or abnormal clothing, upon hiring a gay person one would have no clue.

I'm not sure why it's 'hilarious' to you; you've obviously been unable or unwilling to grasp how this comparison is being made - and how it has been made many times on this board. And your misunderstanding is made quite evident by your statement here - that I am "equating" it to racism. Because that's not the comparison at all. It doesn't matter what someone looks like. The comparison is in the method of discrimination. When two men want to get married, their sexual orientation is public, is it not? If they are denied the right to this legitimate form of social contract, then they are being denied civil rights.

Truth be told, the true comparison between the struggle for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights for people of color, is in the inane arguments people use against them. The list of "reasons" people use to defend the status quo is the same exact list they were using against the civil rights crowd years ago.

What if Baptists weren't allowed to marry non Baptists. Of course, we can't tell who is a Baptist by looking at them. But that doesn't mean that we still shouldn't fight for them to have the same rights Catholics or Episcopalians or Lutherans have.

I'm not sure why you're even arguing with me, since you seem to have said you support gay marriage being recognized by the state. And it doesn't matter if the effort was private or public. If such a program existed, it would be cretinous conservatives whining about it.

My point still stands. Those who would castigate Iran for its treatment of homosexuals have no leg to stand on if they think homosexuals in their own country are second class citizens. Even yourself. You don't have a problem with gays, you say... you just don't want your church to recognize them. If you're going to buy into some obscure point in the Old Testament and want to define your church by it, so be it. I assume as well, that you don't want people wearing mixed fabrics in your church. Or people who don't keep kosher kitchens. Or people who... well, hopefully you get the idea.

And yes, I said "your party." You are listed here as a Republican. Perhaps you aren't any more, in which case you should update that info. Oh and by the way, who are you planning to vote for next year? When you say "My party? I don't know that there's a true conservative in the GOP these days man," do you mean that you are no longer a conservative, or that you are no longer in the GOP?

Good job with the condescension. It doesn't win arguments or hearts/minds. It's funny when liberals pick and choose their arguments and attempt to insinuate intellectual superiority. I wonder how many of these types of posts happen in XXL sweat pants in the comfort of a trailer park or 2 bdrm apartment. I can't say.

I never once mentioned why I don't think homosexuals should be married in the Church. You make an assumption based solely upon prejudice, which ironically is the same notion you're arguing against. Your arguments against religious people, in my opinion, are often just as bigoted as those against homosexuality. It's funny how hypocrisy and prejudice rears its ugly head. ring ring kettle... you're black.

The truth is that I don't see the job of the state to dictate morality. If people want to engage in the civil and legal opportunity of marriage, so be it. Who cares what the law allows? It allows me to drink incessantly, eat fast food 3x daily, watch porn 24/7, or live my life on Prozac and Ambien. None of which a healthy person would suggest I'd assume.

Is this a thread about gay marriage? I don't remember it being. It really was a thread about homosexuals in Iran.



I've often wondered about your sexuality QH. You argue homosexuality's morality as if you have a cross to burn. Why is that related? Well, mostly because it seems that regardless of how I stand on this thread you feel as if making me "wrong" about gay people is your goal. I've never felt it necessary to stand up for Baptists with blind and wanton abandon. Guess it's because I'm not Baptist.

My preference to not having gays marry in my church has little to do with the Old Testament reference. Maybe next time you should ask and then pick apart my answer prior to making prejudiced rants. It might help you to assert your assumed intellect.

The USA is a free country. I don't believe that people should smoke, that people should sit on the couch and kill their hearts, that people should drink all the time, etc. Does that mean that I think it should be illegal? Of course not. Homosexuality is the same thing. I think smokers, fat people, lazy people, and the perpetually unemployed are just as or more detrimental to society. I would kick none out of church or my home I'd suppose, but can't imagine suggesting that it's ok. I would have to imagine that in Muslim nations such as Iran, few if any of these luxuries are present.

The very fabric of the US is found in the nuclear family. Apple pie, baseball, and two men kissing? Of course not. The PTA and boy scouts aren't ready for two moms. They shouldn't be. Guess that's something less secular nations' have spot on in my opinion. At least they don't have to worry about going too far down Bourbon street in Riyadh.

The fact is that if people want to engage in those practices, go for it. If they can be good employees, good customers, good neighbors, etc so be it. If it makes them happy - more power to them. Who are they hurting? Should I condone it? Of course not. I don't believe it's a healthy and productive lifestyle that mainstream America should embrace. I believe this about many things... and I don't think that I'm going to ask for fast food or smoking in my church either...

Iran and most all Muslim culture and countries have a completely different take on the subject (as near as I can tell). Open homosexuality is far more detrimental to one's livelihood and standing in a community. I live next door to a gay man (he just bought the house) who has multiple partners and seems to live a life I'd rather not have a son to grow into. However- as a neighbor, he's a cool dude. He'll bring up my garbage can sometimes, gave us a wreath for the fall, and also hates the Dallas Cowboys and likes Shiner Bock. Guess that's about all you can ask for someone living next door. It doesn't mean that I'm going to tell him how proud of him I am.

*Side note**
In reference to "my party", I'd have to say that I am a conservative and a republican. I just don't believe that the leadership of the GOP these days can argue either. You (or I) would be hard pressed to find a true conservative on the ticket these days. I believe I'm really beginning to identify with Libertarians more and more each day. To answer the voting question- I probably just won't, or grudgingly choose a "least awful" candidate.